"There was a moment in May 1968 and another in the 1980s under Thatcher when the miners were on strike, but we failed to grasp either. This one is different. No one's ever seen what we are seeing now with the economy and it's the economy that drives people to the streets."

Anarchists are pussies. I live in St. Paul, MN, where the republican convention took place. There was a demonstration march, meant to be peaceful, that took place. Some "anarchists"', which means "little college bastards with bandanas on their faces" showed up and started trashing downtown. As soon as cops started showing up they lasted about 3 minutes and then hightailed it. One kid got the pepper spray for being a little dick and they all bolted. Nice work.

Anarchists are pussies. I live in St. Paul, MN, where the republican convention took place. There was a demonstration march, meant to be peaceful, that took place. Some "anarchists"', which means "little college bastards with bandanas on their faces" showed up and started trashing downtown. As soon as cops started showing up they lasted about 3 minutes and then hightailed it. One kid got the pepper spray for being a little dick and they all bolted. Nice work.

Anarchists are dumb because they never have a plan. I mean, if you tried to go up to the average anarchist and be like "Ok, what if your "movement" was successful, what kind of society would we live in and how exactly would it work?" they will never ever (at least in my experience) give any answer that makes any sense. Instead most of them just start in yelling about how the government is evil.

Doing 10 seconds of research, it seems a common theme with all anarchist sub-groups that government all together would be eliminated. This might work, but it would bring about in my opinion, two likely situations: Either the masses of the world would have to take responsibility for their well being, health food etc, or the world would be a type of "Mad Max" system where you would have thousands of different bands and tribes, all professing their way is the right way. Probably millions of micro governments would be formed.

So I don't get the anarchist "dream". When the people remain vigilant & responsible, the US gov totally frees the common man. What more could anarchists want?

Anarchists are dumb because they never have a plan. I mean, if you tried to go up to the average anarchist and be like "Ok, what if your "movement" was successful, what kind of society would we live in and how exactly would it work?" they will never ever (at least in my experience) give any answer that makes any sense. Instead most of them just start in yelling about how the government is evil.

Doing 10 seconds of research, it seems a common theme with all anarchist sub-groups that government all together would be eliminated. This might work, but it would bring about in my opinion, two likely situations: Either the masses of the world would have to take responsibility for their well being, health food etc, or the world would be a type of "Mad Max" system where you would have thousands of different bands and tribes, all professing their way is the right way. Probably millions of micro governments would be formed.

So I don't get the anarchist "dream". When the people remain vigilant & responsible, the US gov totally frees the common man. What more could anarchists want?

I can already tell that your a socialist. The constitution, bill of rights, and declaration of independence of the United states gave the common man the power to be king of himself as long as he wasn't hurting anyone else. Name a free'er system that is in place and we'll start talking, but you can't, so I don't know why your laughing.

pablo420 wrote:

wolffe wrote:

the US gov totally frees the common man

Ahahahahahahaha!

I can already tell that your a socialist. The constitution, bill of rights, and declaration of independence of the United states gave the common man the power to be king of himself as long as he wasn't hurting anyone else. Name a free'er system that is in place and we'll start talking, but you can't, so I don't know why your laughing.

"I mean, if you tried to go up to the average anarchist and be like "Ok, what if your "movement" was successful, what kind of society would we live in and how exactly would it work?""

That is the easy answer. Communism of one form or another.

"So I don't get the anarchist "dream". When the people remain vigilant & responsible, the US gov totally frees the common man. What more could anarchists want?"

I also believe that The Constitution and a Republic style system is the closest we can get to true individual freedom.....why do you think they try to undermine both? Let us take California for example.....the people voted YES overwhelmingly for Medical Marijuana. We know how the Feds reacted to that. Also, the gay marriage thing....the people overwhelmingly voted NO...now the Feds and people within the California government are trying to overturn it. It is like the Feds say, "Well, you can vote.....you just better vote correctly." The. U.S. system can and does work, but it needs one crucial piece to work. That is the people...and if the people are not involved, uninformed and/or do not understand how our own governmental system works...of course it will fail. Freedom takes work and diligence because there is always someone MORE than willing to do everything for you...at your own peril. Also, class warfare is a joke. There will always be people who are above you, that are more successful than you are. Of course when the class warfare jokers do get what they want, they almost always put themselves on that very pedestal that they knocked the other guy off of. You know, if they worked that hard to better themselves instead of using all that energy to destroy someone else......maybe their lives would be better.

@Woolfey

"I mean, if you tried to go up to the average anarchist and be like "Ok, what if your "movement" was successful, what kind of society would we live in and how exactly would it work?""

That is the easy answer. Communism of one form or another.

"So I don't get the anarchist "dream". When the people remain vigilant & responsible, the US gov totally frees the common man. What more could anarchists want?"

I also believe that The Constitution and a Republic style system is the closest we can get to true individual freedom.....why do you think they try to undermine both? Let us take California for example.....the people voted YES overwhelmingly for Medical Marijuana. We know how the Feds reacted to that. Also, the gay marriage thing....the people overwhelmingly voted NO...now the Feds and people within the California government are trying to overturn it. It is like the Feds say, "Well, you can vote.....you just better vote correctly." The. U.S. system can and does work, but it needs one crucial piece to work. That is the people...and if the people are not involved, uninformed and/or do not understand how our own governmental system works...of course it will fail. Freedom takes work and diligence because there is always someone MORE than willing to do everything for you...at your own peril. Also, class warfare is a joke. There will always be people who are above you, that are more successful than you are. Of course when the class warfare jokers do get what they want, they almost always put themselves on that very pedestal that they knocked the other guy off of. You know, if they worked that hard to better themselves instead of using all that energy to destroy someone else......maybe their lives would be better.

[quote user="shanusmaximus"] Also, class warfare is a joke. There will always be people who are above you, that are more successful than you are. Of course when the class warfare jokers do get what they want, they almost always put themselves on that very pedestal that they knocked the other guy off of. You know, if they worked that hard to better themselves instead of using all that energy to destroy someone else......maybe their lives would be better.[/quote]

Absense of class warfare is a joke. It's like saying that groups of people with the same interests will seize to exist.

shanusmaximus wrote:

Also, class warfare is a joke. There will always be people who are above you, that are more successful than you are. Of course when the class warfare jokers do get what they want, they almost always put themselves on that very pedestal that they knocked the other guy off of. You know, if they worked that hard to better themselves instead of using all that energy to destroy someone else......maybe their lives would be better.

^ The problem is in the wording itself. Class. Do you consider someone who started from nothing that worked his ass off to gain his wealth in the same class as someone who hasn't worked a day in their life who pulls from a trust fund? I don't. How about the guy who takes over the family business and makes it more successful through hard work, smarts and determination? Does he deserve to have his income "redistributed"? Sure not all rich people deserve their wealth (British Monarchy), but many, many more do and they started from nothing. Not all rich people are created equally and when I hear a joker like the guy in the article say, "I'm full of class hatred, I just want to overthrow the ruling classes." Then he has the boo-hoo story of his dad being a butler....he didn't have to be a butler. What it seems like to me is that this guy is not smart enough to do anything except be mad at "the ruling classes". He seems to lump in that if you are successful that you somehow have done great injustices, which is not always true. But it is easy to lump people in catagories....to blame a whole group of people because you have made poor decisions or are too dumb to become successful. Lets just break it down to what he is really saying...."overthrow the ruling classes" means to redistribute wealth....hence, the anarchist ALWAYS ends up being a communist....he just doesn't have the stomach to call himself one.

^ The problem is in the wording itself. Class. Do you consider someone who started from nothing that worked his ass off to gain his wealth in the same class as someone who hasn't worked a day in their life who pulls from a trust fund? I don't. How about the guy who takes over the family business and makes it more successful through hard work, smarts and determination? Does he deserve to have his income "redistributed"? Sure not all rich people deserve their wealth (British Monarchy), but many, many more do and they started from nothing. Not all rich people are created equally and when I hear a joker like the guy in the article say, "I'm full of class hatred, I just want to overthrow the ruling classes." Then he has the boo-hoo story of his dad being a butler....he didn't have to be a butler. What it seems like to me is that this guy is not smart enough to do anything except be mad at "the ruling classes". He seems to lump in that if you are successful that you somehow have done great injustices, which is not always true. But it is easy to lump people in catagories....to blame a whole group of people because you have made poor decisions or are too dumb to become successful. Lets just break it down to what he is really saying...."overthrow the ruling classes" means to redistribute wealth....hence, the anarchist ALWAYS ends up being a communist....he just doesn't have the stomach to call himself one.

^ Whatever you say, I am not a fan of anarchism either. But anarchists always mean to overthrow the ruling classes but what do they propose is different, there are anarcho-capitalists, there are anarcho-socialists.

For example anarchists took part in October Revolution in Russia among others against czar , but after that they were against proletarian dictatorship and redistribution of wealth as was proposed by Lenin and bolsheviks.

[quote user="shanusmaximus"] Do you consider someone who started from nothing that worked his ass off to gain his wealth in the same class as someone who hasn't worked a day in their life who pulls from a trust fund? I don't. How about the guy who takes over the family business and makes it more successful through hard work, smarts and determination? Does he deserve to have his income "redistributed"? [/quote]

I don't think it matters what we think who should be in what class. If a succesful businessman and a homeless have same interests and want to protect or further them, they are in the same class.

^ Whatever you say, I am not a fan of anarchism either. But anarchists always mean to overthrow the ruling classes but what do they propose is different, there are anarcho-capitalists, there are anarcho-socialists.

For example anarchists took part in October Revolution in Russia among others against czar , but after that they were against proletarian dictatorship and redistribution of wealth as was proposed by Lenin and bolsheviks.

shanusmaximus wrote:

Do you consider someone who started from nothing that worked his ass off to gain his wealth in the same class as someone who hasn't worked a day in their life who pulls from a trust fund? I don't. How about the guy who takes over the family business and makes it more successful through hard work, smarts and determination? Does he deserve to have his income "redistributed"?

I don't think it matters what we think who should be in what class. If a succesful businessman and a homeless have same interests and want to protect or further them, they are in the same class.

^ So they just end up being unwitting agent provocateurs for the next ruling class.....They want to kick down the sand castle but have no intention of following through with any thought or plan of what would be built next....that's what it seems to me. Just because you have one wall in your house that is rotten, does that mean you tear down the whole house?? The anarchist seems to be only a catalyst for chaos without thinking about what comes out of the chaos. So....to finish....if they are not closet communists......they are just fucking idiots. Just my opinion of course...

"I don't think it matters what we think who should be in what class. If a succesful businessman and a homeless have same interests and want to protect or further them, they are in the same class."

So the guy who came on a boat from a whole different country, comes and works his ass off, passes it off to his kids who work their asses off to keep the business afloat is in the same "class" as a shrimp eating, white wine guzzling, coke snorting Trustifarian who never worked a day in his life?? I find that to be not only simplistic but a dangerous view on things.....Who made these "anarchists" judge, jury and executioner?

Terrible, terrible things were done in the name of Revolution.....

^ So they just end up being unwitting agent provocateurs for the next ruling class.....They want to kick down the sand castle but have no intention of following through with any thought or plan of what would be built next....that's what it seems to me. Just because you have one wall in your house that is rotten, does that mean you tear down the whole house?? The anarchist seems to be only a catalyst for chaos without thinking about what comes out of the chaos. So....to finish....if they are not closet communists......they are just fucking idiots. Just my opinion of course...

"I don't think it matters what we think who should be in what class. If a succesful businessman and a homeless have same interests and want to protect or further them, they are in the same class."

So the guy who came on a boat from a whole different country, comes and works his ass off, passes it off to his kids who work their asses off to keep the business afloat is in the same "class" as a shrimp eating, white wine guzzling, coke snorting Trustifarian who never worked a day in his life?? I find that to be not only simplistic but a dangerous view on things.....Who made these "anarchists" judge, jury and executioner?

When say Communism is the desired outcome of Anarchy, you are in some respects correct. Sort of. If by Communism you mean the Authoratarian regimes of the Soviet Union, or indeed China (as I strongly suspect you do) then you are not correct. Communism in principle (classless society, an end to wage slavery, workers controlling production and an end to centralised government) is technically what most Anarchists are working towards. Although Anarchy is a rather broad term that does not refer to any specific doctrine or ideology, so there isn't much consensus between these various groups that refer to themselves as anarchists.

Historically, Anarchy evolved out of the socialist movements of the 19th century, with the split between Authoratarian Socialism (The Marxists and your much beloved Fabian Socialists) and Libertarian Socialists. I should point out at this time that it was the Anarchists that were correctly predicting the horrors that Bolshevism would lead to even before the Russian revolution.

Basically though, the unifying belief is that socialism is only possible if it evolves organically from below. Anything imposed from above can never, and will never resemble socialism.

As for revolution, I personally don't believe violent revolution can lead to socialism either, as a violent revolution will always be met by counter-revolution and will be forced to resort to authoratarian measures to defend itself.

In summary, I think a lot of bad shit will go down in London today, and I don't believe any good will come of it. There's a lot of really pissed off people right now, but smashing shopfronts will only result in a heavy handed police response and further curtailment of our right to protest. All in all it's a sorry state of affairs, and I don't pretend to have the answers.

Looks like some clarification is needed (again).

When say Communism is the desired outcome of Anarchy, you are in some respects correct. Sort of. If by Communism you mean the Authoratarian regimes of the Soviet Union, or indeed China (as I strongly suspect you do) then you are not correct. Communism in principle (classless society, an end to wage slavery, workers controlling production and an end to centralised government) is technically what most Anarchists are working towards. Although Anarchy is a rather broad term that does not refer to any specific doctrine or ideology, so there isn't much consensus between these various groups that refer to themselves as anarchists.

Historically, Anarchy evolved out of the socialist movements of the 19th century, with the split between Authoratarian Socialism (The Marxists and your much beloved Fabian Socialists) and Libertarian Socialists. I should point out at this time that it was the Anarchists that were correctly predicting the horrors that Bolshevism would lead to even before the Russian revolution.

Basically though, the unifying belief is that socialism is only possible if it evolves organically from below. Anything imposed from above can never, and will never resemble socialism.

As for revolution, I personally don't believe violent revolution can lead to socialism either, as a violent revolution will always be met by counter-revolution and will be forced to resort to authoratarian measures to defend itself.

In summary, I think a lot of bad shit will go down in London today, and I don't believe any good will come of it. There's a lot of really pissed off people right now, but smashing shopfronts will only result in a heavy handed police response and further curtailment of our right to protest. All in all it's a sorry state of affairs, and I don't pretend to have the answers.

[quote user="wolffe"] [quote user=pablo420]For the love of Xenu how do I embed a video?![/quote]

Heres the code (without the quotations) "[video][/video]"

So on a link like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu-UkTv8tVk you would only take everything after the = sign. So inbetween "[video][/video]" you would put Lu-UkTv8tVk in.

[/quote]

I changed it last night so that you can put the whole youtube url in.

On the note of anarchy, that's massive fail right there. Without a government, there will be no police, or army, or anyone looking out for national interests. Then someone like me will come along, and completely unchallenged will pimp the whole system and become king.

wolffe wrote:

pablo420 wrote:

For the love of Xenu how do I embed a video?!

Heres the code (without the quotations) "[video][/video]"

So on a link like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu-UkTv8tVk you would only take everything after the = sign. So inbetween "[video][/video]" you would put Lu-UkTv8tVk in.

I changed it last night so that you can put the whole youtube url in.

On the note of anarchy, that's massive fail right there. Without a government, there will be no police, or army, or anyone looking out for national interests. Then someone like me will come along, and completely unchallenged will pimp the whole system and become king.

Besides, in the Spanish Civil War it was the anarchists who were quickest to react. The Republican government was essentially paralysed by Franco's fascist uprising. It was the Anarcho-Syndicalist CNT that armed and organised the first militias.

As for the idea of no police/no army, I refer back to the Chomsky video I posted in this thread. If authoritarian structures in society can't justify themselves, then they should be dismantled. You could very well make the case that such authoritarian structures as the police and the armed forces can justify themselves for the time being. But in a truly equitable society they would become obsolete.

Besides, in the Spanish Civil War it was the anarchists who were quickest to react. The Republican government was essentially paralysed by Franco's fascist uprising. It was the Anarcho-Syndicalist CNT that armed and organised the first militias.

As for the idea of no police/no army, I refer back to the Chomsky video I posted in this thread. If authoritarian structures in society can't justify themselves, then they should be dismantled. You could very well make the case that such authoritarian structures as the police and the armed forces can justify themselves for the time being. But in a truly equitable society they would become obsolete.